Although Congress in the 2005 Energy Policy Act tried to end the balkanization of authority over the nation’s high-voltage interstate transmission system, and attract new investment in it, that attempt has failed. Now, two new reports from the conservative
Manhattan Institute have proposed strengthening the federal government’s authority to site transmission, while rejecting the notion that the government should finance transmission projects.
Siting New Transmission Lines
Examining “Regulatory Barriers to a National Electricity Grid,” University of Texas business law educator Drew Thornley notes that the nation’s three independent power networks—the Eastern Interconnection, the Western Interconnection, and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas—constitute “a sprawling and every-growing network of technology that has developed organically, in bits and pieces, over decades.” After the U.S. highway system, the transmission and distribution grid “is the largest physical structure in the United States.”
Rationalizing and expanding the grid to serve the national load, which includes increasing amounts of power from remote renewable generating sources, says Thornley, faces serious obstacles. Failure to overcome them means that “new generating capacity, for which there is no shortage of investment capital, will not be developed if the generators cannot efficiently ship their power to the marketplace.”
The obstacles, in Thornley’s formulation, are not a result of a lack of technology. “Rather,” he argues, “the obstacle is regulatory—both the actual regulations governing the planning, siting, and financing of infrastructure, and the highly fragmented nature of the regulatory regime.” Congress tried to address this in the 2005 law, notes Thornley, giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) “back-stop” authority to site interstate transmission lines in Department of Energy (DOE)–designated “National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors” if states fail to act on the lines.
That hasn’t worked. The DOE has designed only two corridors in five years. In January 2010, the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, adopted a limited scope for FERC, ruling that state rejection of a power line trumps the federal interest. What to do? Thornley advocates that Congress come back to the issue and make it clear that FERC reigns supreme. He points to failed 2009 legislation offered by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D, N.M.), the American Clean Energy Leadership Act, which “would preclude wrong-headed guessing by the courts.” At the same time, said Thornley, the law should protect “local interests.” Failing to do so, he said, “is, politically speaking, a nonstarter,” demonstrated by the lack of congressional interest in Bingaman’s bill.
As part of a new national policy concerning the siting of interstate transmission lines, Thornley says policy should not favor one generating technology over another, but should be neutral. “Devoting new transmission solely to certain energy sources—such as wind—would leave expensive new transmission lines underutilized and discourage the building of other forms of power generation that are indispensable elements of the overall energy equation. By the same token, the wide disparities in the tax treatment of investments in various energy sources should be narrowed.”
Share
Email
Comments
Print
BlinkList
Blogmarks
Del.icio.us
Digg
Favoriting
Furl
Google Bookmarks
Netscape
Newsvine
Reddit
Simpy
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Twitter
Windows Live
Yahoo! My Web
A few years back there was an attempt to bypass the states on transmission line siting and the Supreme Court ruled in favor or the states. In addition, Prof. Gilbert Metcalf needs to take Econ 101 again, as he appears to be clueless about the time value of money.
Moreover, the idea that wind energy is indispensible to our energy needs is preposterous. Remove all of the subsidies, loan guarantees and the 30% investment tax credit ( or a 1.5 cent per kilowatt subsidy), most solar and wind plants would not pass muster. Remove the impediments to nuclear power, then you will be doing something constructive and not pollyannish.
The load factor for a solar plant would not reach 25% in most parts of the country. Wind is even more unpredictable or in the hinterlands even if we ignore the reliability problems that have been experienced. In contrastthe load factor of nuclear plants is 90%. If wind is economically viable, then let the developers pay for the transmission lines.
The push to stampede the country is all too reminiscent of the last Congress which voted for a slew of legislation without knowing their contents. Madame Pelosi summed it up when she opined that we should pass the bills, then we will know what they contain
It is no wonder that states object to their installation. I feel we are missing the boat here, totally. When I read of Japan, using underground superconductors I see the same old, same old, thinking that drove GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy. While superconductors may not be economically worthwhile as yet, underground distribution is viable. It may also be, with proper design that it can be suited to future superconductor installation. It should also be considered, that underground installation should be economic considering their life cycle cost. Further, the overhead lines will not be so convertible. Weather, floods and lightning will have little or no impact.
Perhaps, most important is the fact that the underground distribution is not easily subject to terrorist physical attack. In addition, the magnetic shock of high altitude nuclear bombing, should it be used, will not only damage the lines, but all things connected both on the supply and user ends. What devastation with generators and communications lost! Further, it is a matter of history that even severe sun spots can do similar damage. We have been fortunate that these have not occurred to any degree since the advent of overhead transmission, but that does not mean it cannot happen again.
Please think out of the box when planning major construction!